Lisbon II - The A&A Thread

robindch

No

Obni wrote: »

Glad to see that the fact that re-submitting the treaty for approval by plebiscite is fundamentally anti-democratic, isn't causing people any problems.

Last year's result -- see my previous posting -- was fundamentally undemocratic since the majority of people did not vote upon the issue at hand, and instead voted, say, to give Brian Cowen a bloody nose (huh?), because they didn't like FF's attitude to taxi drivers, thought that there was some merit to Declan Ganley's rubbish, didn't like what Shell is doing in Mayo, objected to abortion or euthanasia, and so on and so on.

The number of people who read the Treaty, tried to understand it in context, and voted upon its merits seem to have been a depressingly small minority.

Let's not forget either that this is going to referendum in the first place on account of Ray Crotty, the SEA and a 1987 (?) judgment of the Supreme Court. This referendum has little or nothing to do with the system of representative democracy as defined by the Irish Constitution.

Daftendirekt

No

I'll be voting Yes once again. Haven't read the entire treaty, but I've read enough of it, along with other research, to satisfy myself that I'm making the right choice.

There's nothing even vaguely alarming in it, and both the increase in power to the Parliament and the Citizens' Initiative are a huge plus for me.

I just wish Fianna Fáil had stepped down, so we'd have a government with a mandate spearheading the Yes campaign.


Still though, here's hoping!

Dr. Baltar

Not going to vote

"No" for what the yes people think are all the wrong reasons.

Zillah

No

Sir Baralot wrote: »

"No" for what the yes people think are all the wrong reasons.

Your crypticism, while obviously dark and sexy, is not very constructive to discussion.

Galvasean

No

Sir Baralot wrote: »

"No" for what the yes people think are all the wrong reasons.

Because you think the minimum wage would actually be lowered to €1.84?

Sam Vimes

No

Galvasean wrote: »

Because you think the minimum wage would actually be lowered to €1.84?

Most likely because of the compulsory abortions

Dades

No

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Most likely because of the compulsory abortions

Could be to avoid the enactment of the proposed Logan's Run Bill in section IX, subsection (iii) of the Treaty. :pac:

Naz_st

No

robindch wrote: »

Last year's result -- see my previous posting -- was fundamentally undemocratic since the majority of people did not vote upon the issue at hand, and instead voted, say, to give Brian Cowen a bloody nose (huh?), because they didn't like FF's attitude to taxi drivers, thought that there was some merit to Declan Ganley's rubbish, didn't like what Shell is doing in Mayo, objected to abortion or euthanasia, and so on and so on.

The number of people who read the Treaty, tried to understand it in context, and voted upon its merits seem to have been a depressingly small minority.

"The best argument you can make against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter." -Winston Churchill

Seems appropriate sometimes...

OK-Cancel-Apply

No

Before Lisbon 1, I read up on everything I could, but in the back of my mind, a strong reason for my Yes vote was the realisation that our vote is pretty much a formality. It's not 'democracy at work' - we are a very small and insignificant country, so if we don't play ball, we WILL be eventually told to shag off. Simple as. We think we have power..well, we don't.

sink

No

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Before Lisbon 1, I read up on everything I could, but in the back of my mind, a strong reason for my Yes vote was the realisation that our vote is pretty much a formality. It's not 'democracy at work' - we are a very small and insignificant country, so if we don't play ball, we WILL be eventually told to shag off. Simple as. We think we have power..well, we don't.

If you were on a football team and you didn't play ball, you would eventually be told to shag off as well. Same goes for any organisation, if you don't want to constructively partake in the activities of the organisation and are just going to be a burden, the organisation should expel you. Identify one organisation were this is not the case.

ChocolateSauce

No

sink wrote: »

If you were on a football team and you didn't play ball, you would eventually be told to shag off as well. Same goes for any organisation, if you don't want to constructively partake in the activities of the organisation and are just going to be a burden, the organisation should expel you. Identify one organisation were this is not the case.

The Catholic Church!

Obni

Not going to vote

Zillah wrote: »

In a democracy people are allowed to change their minds. The only reason you would resist a second vote is that you are afraid that enough people have changed their minds, meaning it would pass this time.

Hence, your objection to re-submitting the treaty is massively undemocratic: You want to prevent a potential "Yes" majority from having their democratic will done.

The government and administration of this country are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. They were obliged to put it to a public vote. The people rejected the treaty.
Rather than respecting the will of the people, the government have re-submitted what is largely the same treaty for approval, motivated not by a desire to deliver democratic choice, but because they are simply determined to have their way. The fact that you agree with their objectives seems to have rendered you incapable of recognising their complete disregard for the democratically expressed desires of the electorate.

sink

No

Obni wrote: »

The government and administration of this country are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. They were obliged to put it to a public vote. The people rejected the treaty.
Rather than respecting the will of the people, the government have re-submitted what is largely the same treaty for approval, motivated not by a desire to deliver democratic choice, but because they are simply determined to have their way. The fact that you agree with their objectives seems to have rendered you incapable of recognising their complete disregard for the democratically expressed desires of the electorate.

I've heard this argument made many times and I still hold my reply as a far more simple and convincing argument.

1. A free democratic vote can not by definition be anti-democratic.
2. The government are holding a second referenda because they believe it is in the interest of the country
3. The will of the people has been respected by virtue of the fact that Lisbon treaty has not been ratified.

For your argument to hold true (A) a free democratic vote must be considered anti-democratic (B) the government must be conspiring to undermine democracy and the people who elected them to serve and (C) the opposition, trade unions and business groups must be colluding with them.

I'm sorry but that is not at all a likely scenario.

Sam Vimes

No

Obni wrote: »

The government and administration of this country are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. They were obliged to put it to a public vote. The people rejected the treaty.

No they didn't. They refused to pass something they didn't understand and they rejected abortion, conscription, higher taxes and loss of neutrality, none of which have anything to do with the Lisbon treaty

If people had come out strongly specifically against aspects the treaty it could have been renegotiated but all they said was they hadn't a clue what it was about so it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to actually know what it is they're rejecting before they reject it

robindch

No

Obni wrote: »

The government and administration of this country are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. They were obliged to put it to a public vote. The people rejected the treaty. Rather than respecting the will of the people, the government have re-submitted what is largely the same treaty for approval, motivated not by a desire to deliver democratic choice, but because they are simply determined to have their way.

I don't think you understand correctly what's going on.

The Lisbon Treaty was negotiated by the Irish government in talks with the other member governments and ordinarily, such a treaty would be approved, probably without any trouble, by the Dail. The State signs probably hundreds if not thousands of treaties, legal agreements, understandings, contracts (etc) with many other countries, institutions, companies (etc) every year without going to referendum, or even without much comment from anybody. This treaty was put to referendum only because that's what a 1987 judgment of the Irish Supreme Court (in the case of Ray Crotty and the SEA) recommended be done for any future alterations to the founding treaties of the EU.

Once rejected it was difficult to respect this decision for two simple reasons (a) because the debate was hijacked by a collection of individuals of no obvious honesty who swiftboated the treaty very effectively and (b) Ireland's refusal to ratify the treaty would require the 26 other countries to renegotiate the treaty (again, since this has been going on for years), probably without Ireland's participation.

When looked at numerically, we account for around 0.8% of the EU's population, and if, AFAIR, around 1% of voters last time around voted the other way, the treaty would have passed. Viewed this way, a very understandable frustration arises that less than 0.008% of the EU's population are stymieing progress at EU level for the other 99.992%, particularly since that 0.008% are almost certainly voting down the treaty for reasons which are ostentatiously unconnected with the treaty.

Obni

Not going to vote

robindch wrote: »

Last year's result -- see my previous posting -- was fundamentally undemocratic since the majority of people did not vote upon the issue at hand...

In answer to both of your postings, featuring the balanced profiles of the politically sophisticated and intellectually mature Yes voter, with the knuckle-dragging, reactionary, single-issue, priest-ridden No voter; I would ask you the following rambling question.
If the exit polls following a Yes in the upcoming vote contain a significant proportion of voters voting Yes because it may help us exit this recession sooner and we need all the help we can get, or because it might safeguard their job, or because it will ensure further EU funded development of infrastructure, or because they just like the idea of being European in a chic Benneton ad kind of way, or because they just like being European in a liberal Irish Times weekend arts supplement kind of way, or because they feel being part of a secular federation of European states will further weaken the churches grip in Ireland, or any one of a thousand motivating principles not directly related to the text of the treaty or its likely practical implementation, then if you estimate that portion of Yes people made the critical difference in passing the referendum, would you call for a further vote?

It may be that a referendum of the current form was not envisaged by the constitution, but they have become an integral part of decision making in this country. It should be a method for amending our constitution to reflect the wishes of the people. It has simply become a troublesome administrative step in modifying our constitution to fit into the European form.

ChocolateSauce

No

Obni wrote: »

If the exit polls following a Yes in the upcoming vote contain a significant proportion of voters voting Yes because it may help us exit this recession sooner and we need all the help we can get, or because it might safeguard their job, or because it will ensure further EU funded development of infrastructure, or because they just like the idea of being European in a chic Benneton ad kind of way, or because they just like being European in a liberal Irish Times weekend arts supplement kind of way, or because they feel being part of a secular federation of European states will further weaken the churches grip in Ireland, or any one of a thousand motivating principles not directly related to the text of the treaty or its likely practical implementation, then if you estimate that portion of Yes people made the critical difference in passing the referendum, would you call for a further vote?

No one is claiming those things will happen though (and if they do, it will be by assent), whereas the no side is claiming falsely that we'll have a bunch of stuff forced on us.

It seems to me to be the different between wishful thinking and lies, or the difference between what might be and what won't be.

marco_polo

No

Obni wrote: »

In answer to both of your postings, featuring the balanced profiles of the politically sophisticated and intellectually mature Yes voter, with the knuckle-dragging, reactionary, single-issue, priest-ridden No voter; I would ask you the following rambling question.
If the exit polls following a Yes in the upcoming vote contain a significant proportion of voters voting Yes because it may help us exit this recession sooner and we need all the help we can get, or because it might safeguard their job, or because it will ensure further EU funded development of infrastructure, or because they just like the idea of being European in a chic Benneton ad kind of way, or because they just like being European in a liberal Irish Times weekend arts supplement kind of way, or because they feel being part of a secular federation of European states will further weaken the churches grip in Ireland, or any one of a thousand motivating principles not directly related to the text of the treaty or its likely practical implementation, then if you estimate that portion of Yes people made the critical difference in passing the referendum, would you call for a further vote?

It may be that a referendum of the current form was not envisaged by the constitution, but they have become an integral part of decision making in this country. It should be a method for amending our constitution to reflect the wishes of the people. It has simply become a troublesome administrative step in modifying our constitution to fit into the European form.

If you are looking for people who would oppose a referendum in case the people exercise their right to change their mind on any issue at any time, you will likely find them in short suppy here.

Sam Vimes

No

Someone who votes yes in order to maintain Ireland's reputation in the EU and to improve efficiency, which can improve the economy, has made a valid choice imo. And since we live in a country that has benefited so massively from the EU, someone doesn't need any reason other than that to vote yes.

When an organisation has been as good to you as EU has been to Ireland, you don't just go against them for the sake of it. You should vote yes unless you have a damn good reason not to

Obni

Not going to vote

Sorry - Overlapping posts.
Was typing in the ad breaks of Sarah Silverman's stand-up show on Ch4.

robindch wrote: »

I don't think you understand correctly what's going on.

I'm sure you didn't intend to be patronising, but that is exactly the patronising attitude taken by the government after the last vote.

In fact, I do understand the evolution of the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, and am old enough to remember Ray Crotty and the Single European Act.

Of course, the No side of the vote is liberally sprinkled with undesirables. I would not defend for one moment the likes of Libertas or the pro-life lobby.
I don't believe that the EU will stall for us. We will simply be put to one side, while the rest of the member states proceed.

The key fact remains that the last referendum was either a valid referendum or a sham.

ChocolateSauce

No

Obni wrote: »

The key fact remains that the last referendum was either a valid referendum or a sham.

It was valid. And this one is valid. A keystone of democracy (and common sense) is that decisions of the present will not be over-ruled by the decisions of the past.

bogwalrus

No

its frightening. i live in cork and all my mates are voting no. those bloody core posters are sinking subliminal messages into peoples brains. they are everywhere. i think they should be illegal.

Turtwig

No

Obni wrote: »

The key fact remains that the last referendum was either a valid referendum or a sham.

False Fact :P

Just curious though, how do you think we can be safely put to one side and somehow (miraculously) remain in the EU?

jhegarty

Zillah wrote: »

Now that's curious.

23-3 at the moment. Compared to the After Hours poll which is quite close but leaning towards no.

I think it is very telling that the Yes campaign is based on facts and good arguments, and that the No campaign is based on lies, exaggeration and fear mongering -- and we see that the majority are being duped by the No campaign and here we are, once again in the reasonable minority.

It's the same in the politics forum poll.

Amazing the difference in secrete poll to a public poll where you name is shown.

Obni

Not going to vote

sink wrote: »

[*]The government are holding a second referenda because they believe it is in the interest of the country

I would say rather that they are determined to push Lisbon through, whether the ignorant electorate want it or not.

sink wrote:

(B) the government must be conspiring to undermine democracy and the people who elected them to serve
...
I'm sorry but that is not at all a likely scenario.

Not conspiring, just acting as they see fit.

Obni

Not going to vote

Malty_T wrote: »

False Fact :P

Just curious though, how do you think we can be safely put to one side and somehow (miraculously) remain in the EU?

Brussels will find a way! :eek:

marco_polo

No

Obni wrote: »

I would say rather that they are determined to push Lisbon through, whether the ignorant electorate want it or not.

Not conspiring, just acting as they see fit.

Could it not be equally argued that they are trying to determine if a better informed electorate want it?

Obni

Not going to vote

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Someone who votes yes in order to maintain Ireland's reputation in the EU and to improve efficiency, which can improve the economy, has made a valid choice imo
...
You should vote yes unless you have a damn good reason not to

I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons to vote yes. I just think it's unfair to dismiss No voters as misguided because their reasons for voting No may be 'off-topic', while validating the choice of Yes voters simply voting with-the-flow.

marco_polo

No

jhegarty wrote: »

It's the same in the politics forum poll.

Amazing the difference in secrete poll to a public poll where you name is shown.

Looking at some of the usernames under the yes side of poll, believe me I don't think there are many who would fret over 'what will other people think'. :pac:

Turtwig

No

Obni wrote: »

Brussels will find a way! :eek:

Why would they want to?
Are we of any benefit to them, when all we do is moan and groan and don't really appreciate anything they have done for us.

Just curious,
Does anyone here have any European friends? I've two who happen to be Polish and they were astounded that Ireland, of all nations, chose to reject the treaty.

sink

No

Obni wrote: »

I would say rather that they are determined to push Lisbon through, whether the ignorant electorate want it or not.

So you're implying they don't think it's in the genuine interest of the country but rather for some alternate hidden agenda?

Obni wrote: »

Not conspiring, just acting as they see fit.

Surely if they're not acting in the interest of the country and they are acting on entirely selfish motivations which they are trying to keep hidden; that qualifies as a conspiracy?

Turtwig

No

sink wrote: »

Surely if they're not acting in the interest of the country and they are acting on entirely selfish motivations which they are trying to keep hidden; that qualifies as a conspiracy?

D'uhhhhhh like it is a conspiracy! They're trying to create a CORPORATE EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE where we have no say and the big CORPORATIONS will rule us for the worst!!
Oh and we'll be conscripted into the EU Super Army!
Conspiracy I tell ya!!:rolleyes:

ChocolateSauce

No

Malty_T wrote: »

Why would they want to?
Are we of any benefit to them, when all we do is moan and groan and don't really appreciate anything they have done for us.

Just curious,
Does anyone here have any European friends? I've two who happen to be Polish and they were astounded that Ireland, of all nations, chose to reject the treaty.

I know a surprisingly large number of non-Irish Europeans....about 20 actually. Of the approximately 10 who knew anything about politics, all were pro-EU and pro-Lisbon and were all shocked that we voted no, with the French and Italian among them also indignant that we gave them the finger after getting so much money.

Sam Vimes

No

Obni wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons to vote yes. I just think it's unfair to dismiss No voters as misguided because their reasons for voting No may be 'off-topic', while validating the choice of Yes voters simply voting with-the-flow.

There can be invalid reasons to vote yes, for example if someone thought it would instantly solve the recession, that would be invalid and I would tell them so. But most of the reasons on the yes side, while maybe not directly related to the treaty, are on topic.

Making the EU more efficient might help the economy, as might the increased focus on renewable energy. Voting no for a collection of nonsense reasons will damage Ireland's reputation and reputation is very important in business. In the absence of an overwhelming reason to vote no, these are good reasons to vote yes. The onus is on the no side to convince me that I should go against the organisation that has turned Ireland from an backwards sh!thole to what it is today so naturally their reasons will be put under much greater scrutiny.

lostexpectation

yes voting atheists, smugness overload!!!

there were 9 years between the two divorce referendums for eg , referendum usually only happen again whens theres significant change or time period, neither has accurred in this case.

having it one year after the next is not the height of democracy its desperation.

Obni

Not going to vote

sink wrote: »

Surely if they're not acting in the interest of the country and they are acting on entirely selfish motivations which they are trying to keep hidden; that qualifies as a conspiracy?

Conspiracy? I'm not suggesting that there is anything clandestine about their activities. The government, and the policy makers within the civil service, don't feel the need to be secretive about what they are about. They exude an air of certainty, (as one would expect from any large group within a society that has enormous popular support from within that society), that anyone that disagrees with them is simply wrong, have failed to understand what they have understood, and need to be set straight, by appealling, by cajoling, by badgering, by any means.
They are acting to bring about that which they feel is in the best interests of the electorate, a noble aspiration if it were not for the fact that the electorate have very recently expressed what they feel about the direction of the european experiment, and it is not what the government tell us we want.

It is hard to argue that as an economic and trading block, that the EU has been anything but a success. Trade was at the core of its inception, and the expansion of that block to its current extent has been of huge benefit to the economic and political stability of Europe. A common theme amongst voters against Lisbon, and in the earlier polls on the EU constitution, has been confusion or reticence about the integration of the political and social structures of Europe on the same scale as the economic structure. It would appear that many people in Europe are not ready for that step, and that is regrettable. However, regrettable though it is, it is a real issue. If it takes 10 or 20 more years for European society to mature to the point were full integration can be accomplished with the support of a clear majority throughout Europe, then that time should be taken. There is a difference between expecting businesses to adapt to new working practices, and the political and social unrest you risk by forcing a new poltical and social model on an unwilling populace.

Zillah

No

lostexpectation wrote: »

yes voting atheists, smugness overload!!!

Mmmmm, it's like a warm blanket I can wrap myself in.

Azza

No

lostexpectation wrote:

there were 9 years between the two divorce referendums for eg , referendum usually only happen again whens theres significant change or time period, neither has accurred in this case.

having it one year after the next is not the height of democracy its desperation.

All of Europe wasn't waiting on the results of those referendums. You want the EU to twiddles its thumbs for 9 years?

Sam Vimes

No

lostexpectation wrote: »

there were 9 years between the two divorce referendums for eg , referendum usually only happen again whens theres significant change or time period, neither has accurred in this case.

having it one year after the next is not the height of democracy its desperation.

The reasons given by the majority of no voters were:

1. Lack of understanding
2. Conscription, taxation, abortion, neutrality etc
3. Commissioner

The commissioner issue has been addressed, guarantees have been obtained that the issues in point 2 are not effected by Lisbon and never were and people have had two years to learn about the treaty so they can't use the "lack of understanding" reason anymore. If two years isn't enough, 20 years won't be enough. There's not that much to it.

So plenty has changed

Galvasean

No

Malty_T wrote: »

Just curious,
Does anyone here have any European friends? I've two who happen to be Polish and they were astounded that Ireland, of all nations, chose to reject the treaty.

I work with some Czech, Lithuanian and French people. They were very surprised that the No vote went through and couldn't see why.

pH

No

Galvasean wrote: »

I work with some Czech, Lithuanian and French people. They were very surprised that the No vote went through and couldn't see why.

The French and the Dutch rejected the original constitution and they're hardly the pariahs of Europe now are they? Does anyone really care that they did? have hundreds of companies pulled out of those countries because they did? Does anyone even remember?

I think the correct vote should be yes, however the process now is so unfair that I think I'll vote no. If the yes vote had won there wouldn't now be a second chance for the NO campaign. Keep voting 'til you get the right answer is not a basis for a democracy, we wouldn't accept it for general elections (keep running an election until FF 'won') and it's just as pathetic for a referendum.

Coupled with all of that the my general hatred and contempt for the lot running things at present, even though I know that a vote for Lisbon is probably in my interest, it just hurts to much to acquiesce to them on this.

And the Yes side is getting as bad as the No side with their lies and spin, a NO vote isn't necessarily a vote against Europe, merely a vote for the ONE WE CURRENT HAVE.

Dinner

No

pH wrote: »

The French and the Dutch rejected the original constitution and they're hardly the pariahs of Europe now are they?

That's because they had issues with the actual contents of the Constitution. So they were able to go right back to the negotiating table to remove the parts they took exception to and add some additional parts. The was a big gap between the French vote on the Constitution and their Parliament's ratification of Lisbon because it needed to be renegotiated and ratified by every country again.

We had such a quick turn-around on referenda because the issues that the public had didn't require the treaty to be changed, they just needed to be clarified.

pH wrote: »

I think the correct vote should be yes, however the process now is so unfair that I think I'll vote no. If the yes vote had won there wouldn't now be a second chance for the NO campaign. Keep voting 'til you get the right answer is not a basis for a democracy, we wouldn't accept it for general elections (keep running an election until FF 'won') and it's just as pathetic for a referendum.

You're right to say that if it was a yes first time there wouldn't have been another referendum. Because if we did ratify it, then it probably would have entered into force very quickly. But if anything awful happened as a result of the ratification (still haven't seen any possibilities though) then Lisbon makes it easier to amend treaties and to remove the bit that is somehow catastrophic.

The situation is not 'keep voting 'til you get the right answer'. The situation is 'vote -> reject -> find out why -> solve issues -> vote again'.

Not quite as catchy as 'NO means NO' though.

pH wrote: »

Coupled with all of that the my general hatred and contempt for the lot running things at present, even though I know that a vote for Lisbon is probably in my interest, it just hurts to much to acquiesce to them on this.

This referendum is not about FF. FF cannot claim a yes vote as an endorsement on them because every party in the Dail, bar the shinners, is in favour of it. You think Kenny will allow Cowen to claim victory for something he played a part in?

Same way if it is a no vote, there is not a chance Cowen will take responsibility and call a General Election. For anybody to claim that a no vote will bring down the government is just a cheap way to try win votes.

Zillah

No

pH wrote: »

Coupled with all of that the my general hatred and contempt for the lot running things at present, even though I know that a vote for Lisbon is probably in my interest, it just hurts to much to acquiesce to them on this.

This is unbelievably childish. You're like a five year old who won't eat his vegetables because his parents wouldn't let him have a new toy.

Stercus Accidit

No

If the Lisbon treaty actually did legalise abortion, remove power from our politicians and forcibly remove catholic church influenced laws from Ireland I would have still voted yes.

In fact, its a pity it doesn't do those things, given the state of this country, and its possibly even more of a pity, that things such as legalised abortion and secularism are ways to scare Irish people to vote against something.

Love live the stereotype.


Gotta lol though at the latest scare tactics, 1.84 minimum wage! I honestly believe that its the yes campaign behind that particular nugget of wisdom, you couldn't make the no side look more ridiculous!

Dades

No

Zillah - less of the ad hominem, if you would.

Zillah

No

Er, yes, quite right.

pH

No

Dinner wrote: »

The situation is not 'keep voting 'til you get the right answer'. The situation is 'vote -> reject -> find out why -> solve issues -> vote again'.

Not quite as catchy as 'NO means NO' though.

I fail to see the difference, how about let's all vote for a general election, what? Fianna Fail wasn't elected let's:
-> find out why,
-> change our policies
- >and vote again.

You honestly saying you'd be happy with that as a form of democracy?

Dinner

No

pH wrote: »

I fail to see the difference, how about let's all vote for a general election, what? Fianna Fail wasn't elected let's:
-> find out why,
-> change our policies
- >and vote again.

You honestly saying you'd be happy with that as a form of democracy?

Thats quite similar to the situation we have in place. Except that General Elections have a more fixed gap.


Should a referendum never be run again after it has been rejected?

robindch

No

pH wrote: »

Keep voting 'til you get the right answer is not a basis for a democracy, we wouldn't accept it for general elections

Ireland is not a pure democracy in which any member of the electorate can vote on any issue of state, but a representative democracy which periodically elects representatives who can vote on any issue of state. We're having a referendum not because our elected representatives want one, but because the unelected Supreme Court said we should.

pH wrote: »

Coupled with all of that the my general hatred and contempt for the lot running things at present, even though I know that a vote for Lisbon is probably in my interest, it just hurts to much to acquiesce to them on this.

That's an irrational reason to vote one way or another. Cowen has said that he won't be resigning if the vote goes against. If you detest FF, then join another political party or set up one yourself -- that's how representative democracy is supposed to work.

pH wrote: »

a NO vote isn't necessarily a vote against Europe, merely a vote for the ONE WE CURRENT HAVE.

Given that the elected representatives of around 495 million people in twenty-six countries have approved this Treaty, it's hard to see a no-vote by one small state containing less than 1% of the overall population, as anything other than a vote "against" Europe.

mewso

No

Well I'm a yes man but I do find it somewhat ridiculous personally that we continually have these Chris Tarrant "Is that your final answer" approaches to European referendums (referenda?). We are only having this because it was no vote.

If it had been a yes vote last time we would never have looked back and worried about voters' lack of understanding, confusion etc.

Having said that I am very pro-Europe for similar reasons to what has been said already. I trust them far more than the bland politicians in this country that these days seem to differ only by party name their policies swinging from left to right depending on how the plebs (voters) are feeling according to market research. Self-Interest politics is the name of the game here.